Rujikinwrote:
Thats how it should be too. He made a BUSINESS decision instead of letting racism get in the way. He is a BUSINESSMAN so he did what a BUSINESSMAN is suppose to do. He made the right decision for the right reason, after all a business's primary function is to make money. Plus due to him it caused most of the other clubs to change their policy.

Forgive me for jumping into this comment chain, but I wanted to say a few things.

First of all, while his decision in this case was a good decision, I don't really think I can applaud him for wanting to make more money. Like sure, it was a good business decision, but I don't think it was a decision made because of his moral beliefs, but instead because he saw dollar signs.

Second, I agree that Trump shouldn't be criticized because of who endorses him. However, he should be criticized for all of his questionable behavior and stances which have led to the point where racist individuals are loudly supporting him.

Third, Byrd was out of the KKK for about 60 years at the time of his death and repeatedly apologized for his involvement. Using him to connect Hillary to the KKK is a bit ridiculous:

"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

In fact his rejection of the KKK was so strong that even the NAACP publicly mourned his passing in 2010 and spoke about how strong of a civil rights supporter he was:

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed."

“When Donald opened his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews. The old guard in Palm Beach was outraged that Donald would accept blacks and Jews so that’s the real Donald Trump that I know.”

That was author Ronald Kessler in a July 2015 interview with Newsmax, talking about Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s business practices when it came to building a golf course in the Deep South.

In the 1990s, Trump was running into a problem getting his golf course approved by the local town council in Palm Beach, which was imposing restrictions on his bid.

So Trump shot back with maximum effect. As reported by the Washington Post’s Mary Jordan and Rosalind Helderman on Nov. 14, 2015: “Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one.”

The Washington Post report continues, “Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: ‘A Gentleman’s Agreement,’ about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiancé.”

Sometimes, in judging the character of an individual, it pays to see what people actually do when nobody’s really paying attention. When it came to segregation in the South at private, all-white country clubs, it might have been in Trump’s business interests to simply look the other way. Instead, Trump did the right thing and insisted on desegregation at his golf resort.

And he won.

Soon thereafter, the local restrictions were lifted and, today, the golf course is open and remains inclusive.

It remains a point of pride for Trump, who boasted about the golf resort in a 2015 interview, “Whether they love me or not, everyone agrees the greatest and most important place in Palm Beach is Mar-a-Lago. I took this ultimate place and made it incredible and opened it, essentially, to the people of Palm Beach. The fact that I owned it made it a lot easier to get along with the Palm Beach establishment.”

At the time in 1997, then-Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman praised Trump for elevating the issue of discrimination at private clubs, telling the Wall Street Journal, “He put the light on Palm Beach. Not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. It has an impact.” Foxman credited Trump’s move with encouraging other clubs in Palm Beach to do the same as Mar-a-Lago in opening up.

That’s the real Donald Trump. The one who dealt with a real problem to do with discrimination on race and religion in Palm Beach long before he was ever seeking public office by confronting a local planning board over its exclusive policies, determined he would do things differently.

I guess when he said that judge from Illinois was incapable of being impartial because his family is from Mexico was just a misunderstanding.

You realize that down in Louisiana judges have stock in a large number of oil companies. When lawsuits against BP started they had to reject like 90% of the judges because they owned an interest in those oil companies. If someone has any kind of a personal interest in a case they are not suppose to be the judge because they cannot be fair with a pre-existing opinion.

owning stock in the company you're supposed to adjudicate is not the same as being mexican in origin. by that logic any judge that's white shouldn't be a judge in any Trump case because they might give him an unfair advantage

Rujikinwrote:
Thats how it should be too. He made a BUSINESS decision instead of letting racism get in the way. He is a BUSINESSMAN so he did what a BUSINESSMAN is suppose to do. He made the right decision for the right reason, after all a business's primary function is to make money. Plus due to him it caused most of the other clubs to change their policy.

Forgive me for jumping into this comment chain, but I wanted to say a few things.

First of all, while his decision in this case was a good decision, I don't really think I can applaud him for wanting to make more money. Like sure, it was a good business decision, but I don't think it was a decision made because of his moral beliefs, but instead because he saw dollar signs.

Second, I agree that Trump shouldn't be criticized because of who endorses him. However, he should be criticized for all of his questionable behavior and stances which have led to the point where racist individuals are loudly supporting him.

Third, Byrd was out of the KKK for about 60 years at the time of his death and repeatedly apologized for his involvement. Using him to connect Hillary to the KKK is a bit ridiculous:

He was the first in the area to allow Blacks and Jews into a club and started a trend of de-discrimination in the area and that is fact. You think the people it was discriminating against cared that he did it for business reasons or because he was a moral crusader? NO! They were happy this guy treated them as equals. The fact is this guys ACTIONS were the very definition of equality. Actions are what are important not empty words or strongly worded moral crusader letters.

Really though can you really say that he was only thinking of dollar signs or are you just assuming he thinks of nothing but money? For all we know he was on a moral crusade and disguised it as a mere business action. He did go through a lot of effort to include a small portion of the population.

It's no more ridiculous than people saying Trump is with the KKK because some KKK dude supports him. If anything I'm trying to show the irony in their statements. I'd like us to stop with this KKK crap it's as stupid as the birther shit with Obama.

“When Donald opened his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews. The old guard in Palm Beach was outraged that Donald would accept blacks and Jews so that’s the real Donald Trump that I know.”

That was author Ronald Kessler in a July 2015 interview with Newsmax, talking about Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s business practices when it came to building a golf course in the Deep South.

In the 1990s, Trump was running into a problem getting his golf course approved by the local town council in Palm Beach, which was imposing restrictions on his bid.

So Trump shot back with maximum effect. As reported by the Washington Post’s Mary Jordan and Rosalind Helderman on Nov. 14, 2015: “Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one.”

The Washington Post report continues, “Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: ‘A Gentleman’s Agreement,’ about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiancé.”

Sometimes, in judging the character of an individual, it pays to see what people actually do when nobody’s really paying attention. When it came to segregation in the South at private, all-white country clubs, it might have been in Trump’s business interests to simply look the other way. Instead, Trump did the right thing and insisted on desegregation at his golf resort.

And he won.

Soon thereafter, the local restrictions were lifted and, today, the golf course is open and remains inclusive.

It remains a point of pride for Trump, who boasted about the golf resort in a 2015 interview, “Whether they love me or not, everyone agrees the greatest and most important place in Palm Beach is Mar-a-Lago. I took this ultimate place and made it incredible and opened it, essentially, to the people of Palm Beach. The fact that I owned it made it a lot easier to get along with the Palm Beach establishment.”

At the time in 1997, then-Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman praised Trump for elevating the issue of discrimination at private clubs, telling the Wall Street Journal, “He put the light on Palm Beach. Not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. It has an impact.” Foxman credited Trump’s move with encouraging other clubs in Palm Beach to do the same as Mar-a-Lago in opening up.

That’s the real Donald Trump. The one who dealt with a real problem to do with discrimination on race and religion in Palm Beach long before he was ever seeking public office by confronting a local planning board over its exclusive policies, determined he would do things differently.

I guess when he said that judge from Illinois was incapable of being impartial because his family is from Mexico was just a misunderstanding.

You realize that down in Louisiana judges have stock in a large number of oil companies. When lawsuits against BP started they had to reject like 90% of the judges because they owned an interest in those oil companies. If someone has any kind of a personal interest in a case they are not suppose to be the judge because they cannot be fair with a pre-existing opinion.

owning stock in the company you're supposed to adjudicate is not the same as being mexican in origin. by that logic any judge that's white shouldn't be a judge in any Trump case because they might give him an unfair advantage

> Implying "whites" see each other as "white"
> Implying you can identify "whites" just by looking at them

I don't know the specifics of this judge but depending on the circumstances he could be considered unfit. If that judge was anti-Trump or was known to have a negative predisposition towards him because of his statements he could be considered unfit because he couldn't be impartial. Of course anyone can accuse any judge of being impartial but you have to prove such a thing before you can get a change in judges. That is a right that is guaranteed by the court system. Even if you accuse a judge of it it doesn't mean the charges will stick and is a common tactic that lawyers use, though normally they don't speak so publicly about it.

Rujikinwrote:
He was the first in the area to allow Blacks and Jews into a club and started a trend of de-discrimination in the area and that is fact. You think the people it was discriminating against cared that he did it for business reasons or because he was a moral crusader? NO! They were happy this guy treated them as equals. The fact is this guys ACTIONS were the very definition of equality. Actions are what are important not empty words or strongly worded moral crusader letters.

Really though can you really say that he was only thinking of dollar signs or are you just assuming he thinks of nothing but money? For all we know he was on a moral crusade and disguised it as a mere business action. He did go through a lot of effort to include a small portion of the population.

It's no more ridiculous than people saying Trump is with the KKK because some KKK dude supports him. If anything I'm trying to show the irony in their statements. I'd like us to stop with this KKK crap it's as stupid as the birther shit with Obama.

Again, he did the right thing and thats great. However, since it doesn't seem like it was morally motivated (or at the least, we have no reason to assume that it was morally driven instead of financially driven), I don't think you can make sweeping statements about him being "anti-discrimination" or try to use this information to counteract the idea that he is "racist". At best you could say that he values money over race (which again, is a good thing, but not so good that it should be celebrated).

Also, like I said, I agree that "guilty by association" is really stupid, but two wrongs don't make a right. Stretching information to counteract stretched information doesn't exactly make the picture much clearer.

“When Donald opened his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews. The old guard in Palm Beach was outraged that Donald would accept blacks and Jews so that’s the real Donald Trump that I know.”

That was author Ronald Kessler in a July 2015 interview with Newsmax, talking about Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s business practices when it came to building a golf course in the Deep South.

In the 1990s, Trump was running into a problem getting his golf course approved by the local town council in Palm Beach, which was imposing restrictions on his bid.

So Trump shot back with maximum effect. As reported by the Washington Post’s Mary Jordan and Rosalind Helderman on Nov. 14, 2015: “Trump undercut his adversaries with a searing attack, claiming that local officials seemed to accept the established private clubs in town that had excluded Jews and blacks while imposing tough rules on his inclusive one.”

The Washington Post report continues, “Trump’s lawyer sent every member of the town council copies of two classic movies about discrimination: ‘A Gentleman’s Agreement,’ about a journalist who pretends to be Jewish to expose anti-Semitism, and ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ about a white couple’s reaction to their daughter bringing home a black fiancé.”

Sometimes, in judging the character of an individual, it pays to see what people actually do when nobody’s really paying attention. When it came to segregation in the South at private, all-white country clubs, it might have been in Trump’s business interests to simply look the other way. Instead, Trump did the right thing and insisted on desegregation at his golf resort.

And he won.

Soon thereafter, the local restrictions were lifted and, today, the golf course is open and remains inclusive.

It remains a point of pride for Trump, who boasted about the golf resort in a 2015 interview, “Whether they love me or not, everyone agrees the greatest and most important place in Palm Beach is Mar-a-Lago. I took this ultimate place and made it incredible and opened it, essentially, to the people of Palm Beach. The fact that I owned it made it a lot easier to get along with the Palm Beach establishment.”

At the time in 1997, then-Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman praised Trump for elevating the issue of discrimination at private clubs, telling the Wall Street Journal, “He put the light on Palm Beach. Not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. It has an impact.” Foxman credited Trump’s move with encouraging other clubs in Palm Beach to do the same as Mar-a-Lago in opening up.

That’s the real Donald Trump. The one who dealt with a real problem to do with discrimination on race and religion in Palm Beach long before he was ever seeking public office by confronting a local planning board over its exclusive policies, determined he would do things differently.

I guess when he said that judge from Illinois was incapable of being impartial because his family is from Mexico was just a misunderstanding.

You realize that down in Louisiana judges have stock in a large number of oil companies. When lawsuits against BP started they had to reject like 90% of the judges because they owned an interest in those oil companies. If someone has any kind of a personal interest in a case they are not suppose to be the judge because they cannot be fair with a pre-existing opinion.

owning stock in the company you're supposed to adjudicate is not the same as being mexican in origin. by that logic any judge that's white shouldn't be a judge in any Trump case because they might give him an unfair advantage

> Implying "whites" see each other as "white"
> Implying you can identify "whites" just by looking at them

I don't know the specifics of this judge but depending on the circumstances he could be considered unfit. If that judge was anti-Trump or was known to have a negative predisposition towards him because of his statements he could be considered unfit because he couldn't be impartial. Of course anyone can accuse any judge of being impartial but you have to prove such a thing before you can get a change in judges. That is a right that is guaranteed by the court system. Even if you accuse a judge of it it doesn't mean the charges will stick and is a common tactic that lawyers use, though normally they don't speak so publicly about it.

yet Trump was using the fact his family is from mexico as the reason he was unfit. it's all bullshit on Con-ald's part

Rujikinwrote:
He was the first in the area to allow Blacks and Jews into a club and started a trend of de-discrimination in the area and that is fact. You think the people it was discriminating against cared that he did it for business reasons or because he was a moral crusader? NO! They were happy this guy treated them as equals. The fact is this guys ACTIONS were the very definition of equality. Actions are what are important not empty words or strongly worded moral crusader letters.

Really though can you really say that he was only thinking of dollar signs or are you just assuming he thinks of nothing but money? For all we know he was on a moral crusade and disguised it as a mere business action. He did go through a lot of effort to include a small portion of the population.

It's no more ridiculous than people saying Trump is with the KKK because some KKK dude supports him. If anything I'm trying to show the irony in their statements. I'd like us to stop with this KKK crap it's as stupid as the birther shit with Obama.

Again, he did the right thing and thats great. However, since it doesn't seem like it was morally motivated (or at the least, we have no reason to assume that it was morally driven instead of financially driven), I don't think you can make sweeping statements about him being "anti-discrimination" or try to use this information to counteract the idea that he is "racist". At best you could say that he values money over race (which again, is a good thing, but not so good that it should be celebrated).

Also, like I said, I agree that "guilty by association" is really stupid, but two wrongs don't make a right. Stretching information to counteract stretched information doesn't exactly make the picture much clearer.

We have people that say they are "morally driven" that are just in it for the money all the time, is it so strange to have the opposite happen? Actually I can because a racist would have followed the rest of the area and kept blacks and jews out. He took the difficult road of equality and starting a political war with the whole area and all of the local politicians at the risk of losing everything and his entire investment of time and money. It's actually quite stupid for business men to get into politics or social issues because they can backfire so easily.

Do you know the best way to stop a fire? You set a fire to burn towards the fire your trying to stop. Fight fire with fire when your objective is to stop all the fires.

It's no more ridiculous than people saying Trump is with the KKK because some KKK dude supports him. If anything I'm trying to show the irony in their statements. I'd like us to stop with this KKK crap it's as stupid as the birther shit with Obama.

Considering that Donald Trump was one of two major Birther's during the last 8 years, I fail to see why he should not reap what he sowed.

Bottom line is that if you espouse rhetoric that causes people like the KKK to support you, then you are in line with their polices whether you accept their endorsements or not. It is clear they are liking what you are saying. So I do not believe that linking him is in any way unfair. You might not like it, but that is who your candidate is being supported by.

Rujikinwrote:
Thats how it should be too. He made a BUSINESS decision instead of letting racism get in the way. He is a BUSINESSMAN so he did what a BUSINESSMAN is suppose to do. He made the right decision for the right reason, after all a business's primary function is to make money. Plus due to him it caused most of the other clubs to change their policy.

Forgive me for jumping into this comment chain, but I wanted to say a few things.

First of all, while his decision in this case was a good decision, I don't really think I can applaud him for wanting to make more money. Like sure, it was a good business decision, but I don't think it was a decision made because of his moral beliefs, but instead because he saw dollar signs.

Second, I agree that Trump shouldn't be criticized because of who endorses him. However, he should be criticized for all of his questionable behavior and stances which have led to the point where racist individuals are loudly supporting him.

Third, Byrd was out of the KKK for about 60 years at the time of his death and repeatedly apologized for his involvement. Using him to connect Hillary to the KKK is a bit ridiculous:

He was the first in the area to allow Blacks and Jews into a club and started a trend of de-discrimination in the area and that is fact. You think the people it was discriminating against cared that he did it for business reasons or because he was a moral crusader? NO! They were happy this guy treated them as equals. The fact is this guys ACTIONS were the very definition of equality. Actions are what are important not empty words or strongly worded moral crusader letters.

Really though can you really say that he was only thinking of dollar signs or are you just assuming he thinks of nothing but money? For all we know he was on a moral crusade and disguised it as a mere business action. He did go through a lot of effort to include a small portion of the population.

It's no more ridiculous than people saying Trump is with the KKK because some KKK dude supports him. If anything I'm trying to show the irony in their statements. I'd like us to stop with this KKK crap it's as stupid as the birther shit with Obama.

let's ignore the time he was sued for refusing to rent to blacks.
http://reverbpress.com/politics/that-time-donald-trump-was-sued-by-doj-for-not-renting-to-blacks/

and there's also the white supremacist(proven bullshit) retweets he's so fond of
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-racist-retweet-twitter-397567

Rujikinwrote:
We have people that say they are "morally driven" that are just in it for the money all the time, is it so strange to have the opposite happen? Actually I can because a racist would have followed the rest of the area and kept blacks and jews out. He took the difficult road of equality and starting a political war with the whole area and all of the local politicians at the risk of losing everything and his entire investment of time and money. It's actually quite stupid for business men to get into politics or social issues because they can backfire so easily.

Do you know the best way to stop a fire? You set a fire to burn towards the fire your trying to stop. Fight fire with fire when your objective is to stop all the fires.

See, its hard to say this was "morally driven" when the "difficult road of equality" he walked was headed towards a $100million suit, coupled with $75,000 membership charges...

Rujikinwrote:
We have people that say they are "morally driven" that are just in it for the money all the time, is it so strange to have the opposite happen? Actually I can because a racist would have followed the rest of the area and kept blacks and jews out. He took the difficult road of equality and starting a political war with the whole area and all of the local politicians at the risk of losing everything and his entire investment of time and money. It's actually quite stupid for business men to get into politics or social issues because they can backfire so easily.

Do you know the best way to stop a fire? You set a fire to burn towards the fire your trying to stop. Fight fire with fire when your objective is to stop all the fires.

See, its hard to say this was "morally driven" when the "difficult road of equality" he walked was headed towards a $100million suit, coupled with $75,000 membership charges...

Because he made money all the good he did doesn't count.... You know what here:

Mr. Trump also has resorted to the courts to secure his foothold here, and many residents wince at the attention his legal battles with the town have drawn — to the town in general, and to the admission practices at some of Palm Beach’s older clubs in particular.

…The culture clash began to approach a climax last fall, when Mr. Trump’s lawyer sent members of the town council a copy of the film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” a film that deals with upper-class racism. Mr. Trump then approached the town council about lifting the restrictions that had been placed on the club. He also asked some council members not to vote on the request because their membership in other clubs created a conflict of interest.

Last December, after the council refused to lift the restrictions, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Palm Beach, alleging that the town was discriminating against Mar-a-Lago, in part because it is open to Jews and African-Americans. The suit seeks $100 million in damages.

… Mr. Foxman seems pleased that Mr. Trump has elevated the issue of discriminatory policies at social clubs. “He put the light on Palm Beach,” Mr. Foxman says. “Not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. It has an impact.”

In recent weeks, Mr. Foxman says, the league has received calls from Jewish residents telling of how Palm Beach clubs are changing. Locals concur that in the past year, organizations such as the Bath and Tennis Club have begun to admit Jewish patrons. The Palm Beach Civic Association, which for many years was believed to engage in discriminatory behavior, this month named a Jewish resident as its chief officer.

He tried to stop it through policy first of all and when that failed he sued them. If he wanted to he could have just sued and not bothered with appealing to them.

He tried to stop it through policy first of all and when that failed he sued them. If he wanted to he could have just sued and not bothered with appealing to them.

You don't understand fighting fire with fire... Whelp I give up.

Worth noting that he dropped the "discrimination" part of the suit when the Anti Defamation League came in and was all like, "woah, easy man"

Even the Anti-Defamation League in New York, which in a 1994 battle forced Palm Beach's Sailfish Club to open up its membership, was concerned that Mr. Trump was using the charge of anti-Semitism for his own mercantile ends. The league's national director, Abraham Foxman, met with Mr. Trump soon after to air his concerns. According to Mr. Foxman, Mr. Trump agreed to modify his claims to allege only that the town council has treated Mar-a-Lago unfairly, compared with other clubs in town.

As for "fighting fire with fire", I understand the phrase and I understand its use in practice (and I even understand the Metallica song), but does it work with information? I don't think it does. If the end goal is "the truth", setting fires to certain parts of the truth is more like a diversionary tactic than a tactic used to prevent the spread of other fires. Its like, "hey, look at this fire over here and not that fire over there!". Kinda like if your neighbor's house was burning down but you didn't want anyone to notice so you set someone else's house on fire to distract the fire department. Basically, if your end goal is the truth, stretching certain information to counteract other stretched information wont really get you any closer to it.